Why does Obama Support Zelaya?

[Metternich]

The first "untruth", we will call them, is that Zelaya was exiled by order of the SCOH. The order was to detain him, at his residence. The order made by the court was for detaining him. Also, the congress DID NOT vote to remove Zelaya until AFTER it had already been done. You don't suppose that's a loaded question for the congress do you? "Hey, we've removed the President by force form the country, now let's take formal vote on the matter". If you think that's an honest vote, I've got some swamp land...

So let me get this straight, the military has just taken out the President, apparently has the Supreme Court 'in hand' and has guns pointed at the backs of the Congress. Yet, they bend over backwards to make sure that the President is just a slightly milder form of the replacement and refuse to capitalize on any of those, as you describe it, moves that have basically checkmated the country? If they had everybody under the thumb, and don't say that it was easy to do, why go through all of this? Why not kick out the President and his cabinent, his administrators? His whole party? Why just him?

From the way you describe, there is no reason why the military shouldn't have set up a junta, or made it easier for their canidates to win.

And that's all I have to say.

Did you see how the entire continent reacted by just the military kicking him out? If they had killed him and instated a military junta, all hell, and I do mean ALL HELL, would've broken lose, and the military know that [finally]. This move might've been idiotic [going through a coup and then exiling the president], but for god's sake, they're not THAT stupid. Only the most bloodthirsty and extreme would've actually gone along with something like that.

I believe your two conclusions, if analyzed critically, are ludicrous.

To merely define the discussion, I'll try to restate your conclusions to the best of my ability. The first is that you say that this new military junta, which is holding elections in a few months I add, did not fully capitalize on their coup because of their long standing respect for human life.

The second point has the means similar to the first, except the reason is their long standing respect for the wider Latin America community.

Er, sorry to sound critical here, but what have you been smoking? The second, as I see it, is a horrible mash of internal inconsistencies. You understand that this would be the first coup, in the history of Latin America, in which the military (you know, those guys who kill people for a job) did not incur one causality? You say that this new military coup cares, to a large degree, about what Chavez and Fidel think about them. Which so consistently goes against the whole profile of the coup, I don't even know where you found that conclusion. I doesn't want to be the bearer of bad news, but they do not care a whit about the other selection of socialist presidents believes. By definition the Supreme Court considers those socialists as illegitimate as they consider their court order. Yet somehow, you conclude that the Court bent over backwards (or the military) to make sure it was 'all good' with them? Eh, sorry, even your own side couldn't buy that.

In that sentence you basically admit that this military junta has reason to be diplomatically viable... Except by your definition, the coup was initiated to fight "the people's President,' making obvious there's no real reason why that the country would care about other socialists, except of course, you realized that this wasn't a military coup that has no reason to enjoy the diplomatic overtures of the same types it kicked out. Instead, it is a properly appointed government that has the full reason to have diplomatic relations, because it still greatly identifies itself with a democratically elected nation.

The first is just dismissible out of hand.

There's no reason for the military to save lives, because of diplomatic 'pressure,' when you can look across the globe (Madagascar anyone?) and realize that coups are just not on anyone's 'care list.'

 

[Sweet Willy]

Have any of us yet established whether the removal the Honduran president was in fact a constitutionally legal event?

I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

I mean I know the Supreme Court of Honduras believes it was, and one would certainly think that they would be the world's experts in the laws of that land.

So I am at something of a loss to understand why the opinions of other nations (ours included) really matter.

I think the removal was the right thing to do. However, they surely went about it the wrong way. The biggest clue is that the congress did not vote to remove him from office until he had already been sent out of the country. I would wager a guess that the vote to remove him from office went a little easier once he was already gone.

The only legal order regarding Zelaya at the time he was ousted, was an order to detain him by the court.

I would also say that opinions on the matter are largely being ignored, as they should be, by Honduras. No one is going to seriously take them to task for this. They did what they thought they could get away with and control the situation.

 

[eagleseven]

Have any of us yet established whether the removal the Honduran president was in fact a constitutionally legal event?

I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

I mean I know the Supreme Court of Honduras believes it was, and one would certainly think that they would be the world's experts in the laws of that land.

So I am at something of a loss to understand why the opinions of other nations (ours included) really matter.

I think the removal was the right thing to do. However, they surely went about it the wrong way. The biggest clue is that the congress did not vote to remove him from office until he had already been sent out of the country. I would wager a guess that the vote to remove him from office went a little easier once he was already gone.

The only legal order regarding Zelaya at the time he was ousted, was an order to detain him by the court.

I would also say that opinions on the matter are largely being ignored, as they should be, by Honduras. No one is going to seriously take them to task for this. They did what they thought they could get away with and control the situation.

At least we agree on one thing.

 

[eagleseven]

You listen to Rush? Who would have guessed? This is completely irrelevant. But I have to admit, it takes me back to the days when I would read anything following "Rush suggested".

Listen to Rush? No, I just read Media Matters.

 

[DiveCon]

You listen to Rush? Who would have guessed? This is completely irrelevant. But I have to admit, it takes me back to the days when I would read anything following "Rush suggested".

Listen to Rush? No, I just read Media Matters.

thats all willy does

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I believe your two conclusions, if analyzed critically, are ludicrous.

To merely define the discussion, I'll try to restate your conclusions to the best of my ability. The first is that you say that this new military junta, which is holding elections in a few months I add, did not fully capitalize on their coup because of their long standing respect for human life.

Absolutely not. That is not what I said AT ALL. In fact, I cannot even begin to comprehend how you extrapolated that. It's not that the military cares about human rights, it's that they cannot run the country, AND THEY KNOW THAT, because they already failed at it for decades, as in all of Latin America. This has been proven in DOZENS of studies on Latin American post-authoritarian regimes, on civil-military relations in Latin America, on the changed international context, and on the shifting views of military personnel across the continent. If you don't know that, you oughta read more. Why do you think there are no more military regimes in Latin America? Because they FAILED. And furthermore, they are not illegitimate and unnacceptable. The military KNOWS the strains on anone who achieves power by military force' the strains that it would place on them and on the country, they would be cast as pariahs, as they had before, and ultimately, they just can't fucking do it. JUST LOOK at this coup. They've already lost diplomatic connections with the EU and the entire continent, they were expelled from the OAS and THEREFORE lost funding [that's the key word here: MONEY] from the Inter-American Development Bank. Jeez, you gotta be a real idiot to not see that it's not about caring for human rights, it's about caring for THEMSELVES. Running the country is not in the their best interests; they risk losing more than they've already lost.

The second point has the means similar to the first, except the reason is their long standing respect for the wider Latin America community.

Absolutely not. Once again, you seem to have some real big issues with reading comprehension and making wild, idiotic assumptions about what people are saying. Every country requires stable relations with neighboring nations and the international community as a whole. This is true EVEN MORE for small, tiny, poor countries like Honduras. In the current context this translates to less foreign investment [which is absolutely necessary], as I said less credit [which they've already lost IDB funding, AND World Bank loands have been frozen, not like you understand anything about that], less aid, and less of everything. It's not as bad as in this coup, had it been a full-fledged military take-over, they country would be bankrupt by now.

Er, sorry to sound critical here, but what have you been smoking? The second, as I see it, is a horrible mash of internal inconsistencies. You understand that this would be the first coup, in the history of Latin America, in which the military (you know, those guys who kill people for a job) did not incur one causality?

It has incurred a casualty.

You say that this new military coup cares, to a large degree, about what Chavez and Fidel think about them. Which so consistently goes against the whole profile of the coup, I don't even know where you found that conclusion.

Absolutely not what I said, but thanks for disfiguring my point to the verge of it being completely unrecognizable. They obviously don't care what Chavez and Castro think about them; but they never though they'd be repudiated by the entire continent. If they had, they probably would've just done the smart thing and arrested him.

I doesn't want to be the bearer of bad news, but they do not care a whit about the other selection of socialist presidents believes. By definition the Supreme Court considers those socialists as illegitimate as they consider their court order. Yet somehow, you conclude that the Court bent over backwards (or the military) to make sure it was 'all good' with them? Eh, sorry, even your own side couldn't buy that.

I'm sorry, but you're a complete retard. Do you realize what year it is? Have you been sleeping for the past 30 years? Hate to be the bearer of bad news, BUT THE COLD WAR ENDED 20 YEARS AGO DUDE. SORRY. But I'm glad to see the insane reactionaries like you and eaglesomething sticking together in calling EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT IN THE ENTIRE CONTINENT "MARXISTS" because they disagree with you . That's real funny dude. How about you tell us how Alvaro Uribe, Felipe Calderon, and Alan Garcia are full fledged leninist chavistas next [if you even knew who they are]?

The problem here is that you people are too stupid to understand that this is a complex issue with a lot of different factors at play. You can't seem to break out from your little binary code "good vs evil freedom vs slavery capitalism vs marxism black vs white" world that you live in in your head, and... well, it's pretty sad.

senseless drivel

Sorry, this paragraph made absolutely no sense, so I had nothing to respond.

The first is just dismissible out of hand.

There's no reason for the military to save lives, because of diplomatic 'pressure,' when you can look across the globe (Madagascar anyone?) and realize that coups are just not on anyone's 'care list.'

Yeah, well, I already took care of this. Not in Latin America; not today, not ever again. Not after what they did through the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Only the vile extremists can possibly still be defending military coups; like they did in almost every country in this continent, which in all cases led to massive death and misery. Thankfully it's not like that anymore. They have to watch out. The mildness of this coup exemplifies that. The message has to be that it is unnacceptable no matter how they sugarcoat it.

 

[Tech_Esq]

What a croc of shit. I don't even know where to start.

Chavez is not a dictator. He is an elected official. The people of Venezuela VOTED to remove term limits so that he can run as often as he likes. The measure FAILED once, voted down by the poeple. Then it was voted on again, including no term limits for ALL politicians, and it passed. He is no more of a dictator than FDR.

In Russia, President Obama Explains His Support for Ousted President of Honduras - Political Punch

This link you posted in the OP was absolutely a lie. There is no mention of anything AT ALL regarding Obama's disposition to Chavez.

Zelaya, allied with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez , fired top military commander Romeo Vásquez Velásquez for refusing to carry out the referendum. Every branch of government sided against Zelaya and Congress began discussing impeachment proceedings.

This is the only mention of Chavez in your cite. Exaclty how does this support anything regarding what Baral Obama thinks of Chavez?

So, why does Obama openly support the destruction of democracy in Honduras?

Obama has repeatedly stated that Democratic principle is his focus in this matter. If you can demonstrate "open support" for the destruction of democracy, please do. Your own cites say other wise.

“America supports now the restoration of the democratically-elected President of Honduras, even though he has strongly opposed American policies,” the president told graduate students at the commencement ceremony of Moscow’s New Economic School. “We do so not because we agree with him. We do so because we respect the universal principle that people should choose their own leaders, whether they are leaders we agree with or not. “

In short, you're a douchebag, lying piece of shit.

Other than that, have a nice day!

\

Dictators can't be elected? I don't know of too many dictators that weren't elected. Hilter was elected. Stalin was elected. Khruschev was elected etc. Maybe Francisco Franco wasn't elected.

Uncle Hugo is a dictator end of story. It isn't even a question. By denying it you expose yourself. This spring Chavez sent the army into the rural areas of the country to force the farmers to increase rice production. That my friend is a dictatorship.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Have any of us yet established whether the removal the Honduran president was in fact a constitutionally legal event?

I don't know, which is why I'm asking.

I mean I know the Supreme Court of Honduras believes it was, and one would certainly think that they would be the world's experts in the laws of that land.

So I am at something of a loss to understand why the opinions of other nations (ours included) really matter.

Ed, no removal of a president in Honduras is never legal. Unlike us, the Hondurans decided that their Constitution was a suicide pact. If they elect a bad guy, then everyone is subject to death until he dies.

It's unique system but who are we to judge.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The first "untruth", we will call them, is that Zelaya was exiled by order of the SCOH. The order was to detain him, at his residence. The order made by the court was for detaining him. Also, the congress DID NOT vote to remove Zelaya until AFTER it had already been done. You don't suppose that's a loaded question for the congress do you? "Hey, we've removed the President by force form the country, now let's take formal vote on the matter". If you think that's an honest vote, I've got some swamp land...

So let me get this straight, the military has just taken out the President, apparently has the Supreme Court 'in hand' and has guns pointed at the backs of the Congress. Yet, they bend over backwards to make sure that the President is just a slightly milder form of the replacement and refuse to capitalize on any of those, as you describe it, moves that have basically checkmated the country? If they had everybody under the thumb, and don't say that it was easy to do, why go through all of this? Why not kick out the President and his cabinent, his administrators? His whole party? Why just him?

From the way you describe, there is no reason why the military shouldn't have set up a junta, or made it easier for their canidates to win.

And that's all I have to say.

Did you see how the entire continent reacted by just the military kicking him out? If they had killed him and instated a military junta, all hell, and I do mean ALL HELL, would've broken lose, and the military know that [finally]. This move might've been idiotic [going through a coup and then exiling the president], but for god's sake, they're not THAT stupid. Only the most bloodthirsty and extreme would've actually gone along with something like that.

I think you you've taken the wrong lesson from that. You've got a recent crop of tin horn dictators and wannabe dictators down there running Chavez' BS Bolavarian Republic or whatever he's calling it these days.

You ever notice that dictators like to liken themselves to past great people to sort of take on some of that heroism themselves? With Chavez it's Simon de Bolivar, with Hitler it was Fredrick the Great, with Obama it's Abraham Lincoln.... Ooops.....did I say that?

Back to the point, tin horn dictators don't like it when examples are made of other dictators in their neighborhood; it's bad for business. Dictatin' ain't easy you know. (It's hard bein' a pimp).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why does Obama Support Zelaya?

Because he is a Fascist Marxist Socialist Lying Douchebag just like Obama

 

[del]

Why does Obama Support Zelaya?

Because he is a Fascist Marxist Socialist Lying Douchebag just like Obama

thanks for stopping by and providing us with that deeply insightful analysis.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I think you you've taken the wrong lesson from that. You've got a recent crop of tin horn dictators and wannabe dictators down there running Chavez' BS Bolavarian Republic or whatever he's calling it these days.

You ever notice that dictators like to liken themselves to past great people to sort of take on some of that heroism themselves? With Chavez it's Simon de Bolivar, with Hitler it was Fredrick the Great, with Obama it's Abraham Lincoln.... Ooops.....did I say that?

Back to the point, tin horn dictators don't like it when examples are made of other dictators in their neighborhood; it's bad for business. Dictatin' ain't easy you know. (It's hard bein' a pimp).

Tech, c'mon. I know you're better than that. Why do you have to follow the path of the intellectual midgets in thinking for some bizarre reason that the only government in this entire region is Venezuela's? Why is everyone saying that? I just can't comprehend. Here we are, I know that not everybody who is "for the coup" is a raving idiot, but surely, even the raving idiots can look at a map and realize that there are more than 20 countries here right? Why do Americans suddenly think appropriate to reduce 500,000,000 people into 3 countries [Cuba, Honduras, Venezuela]? Whatever Happened to Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Uruguay, and Paraguay? Why are people adamantly claiming that now EVERYBODY is run by Chavez or by "Leftists Dictators"? We tried so hard for so long to finally get elections, parliaments, democracies, and now that is all reduced to nothing, because those elected aren't to your liking. Everything is run by "leftists dictators," apparently. But hey, on the bright side, nobody's sending us death squads anymore.

With such a simple-minded view of this world, no thinking person can take these opinions seriously.

 

[Sweet Willy]

I think you you've taken the wrong lesson from that. You've got a recent crop of tin horn dictators and wannabe dictators down there running Chavez' BS Bolavarian Republic or whatever he's calling it these days.

You ever notice that dictators like to liken themselves to past great people to sort of take on some of that heroism themselves? With Chavez it's Simon de Bolivar, with Hitler it was Fredrick the Great, with Obama it's Abraham Lincoln.... Ooops.....did I say that?

Back to the point, tin horn dictators don't like it when examples are made of other dictators in their neighborhood; it's bad for business. Dictatin' ain't easy you know. (It's hard bein' a pimp).

Tech, c'mon. I know you're better than that. Why do you have to follow the path of the intellectual midgets in thinking for some bizarre reason that the only government in this entire region is Venezuela's? Why is everyone saying that? I just can't comprehend. Here we are, I know that not everybody who is "for the coup" is a raving idiot, but surely, even the raving idiots can look at a map and realize that there are more than 20 countries here right? Why do Americans suddenly think appropriate to reduce 500,000,000 people into 3 countries [Cuba, Honduras, Venezuela]? Whatever Happened to Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Uruguay, and Paraguay? Why are people adamantly claiming that now EVERYBODY is run by Chavez or by "Leftists Dictators"? We tried so hard for so long to finally get elections, parliaments, democracies, and now that is all reduced to nothing, because those elected aren't to your liking. Everything is run by "leftists dictators," apparently. But hey, on the bright side, nobody's sending us death squads anymore.

With such a simple-minded view of this world, no thinking person can take these opinions seriously.

Epsilon, I am sure you know why these people are reducing this to simple terms. It has nothing to do with what happened, the dirty details or who else has concerns about the region. It's a chance to say "Obama, Chavez and Castro" in the same sentence. And that's all.

The UN and the OAS were unanamous on the issue. No country voted to recognize the coup as legitimate and it has nothing to do with Castro or Chavez.

 

[eagleseven]

I think you you've taken the wrong lesson from that. You've got a recent crop of tin horn dictators and wannabe dictators down there running Chavez' BS Bolavarian Republic or whatever he's calling it these days.

You ever notice that dictators like to liken themselves to past great people to sort of take on some of that heroism themselves? With Chavez it's Simon de Bolivar, with Hitler it was Fredrick the Great, with Obama it's Abraham Lincoln.... Ooops.....did I say that?

Back to the point, tin horn dictators don't like it when examples are made of other dictators in their neighborhood; it's bad for business. Dictatin' ain't easy you know. (It's hard bein' a pimp).

Tech, c'mon. I know you're better than that. Why do you have to follow the path of the intellectual midgets in thinking for some bizarre reason that the only government in this entire region is Venezuela's? Why is everyone saying that? I just can't comprehend. Here we are, I know that not everybody who is "for the coup" is a raving idiot, but surely, even the raving idiots can look at a map and realize that there are more than 20 countries here right? Why do Americans suddenly think appropriate to reduce 500,000,000 people into 3 countries [Cuba, Honduras, Venezuela]? Whatever Happened to Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Uruguay, and Paraguay? Why are people adamantly claiming that now EVERYBODY is run by Chavez or by "Leftists Dictators"? We tried so hard for so long to finally get elections, parliaments, democracies, and now that is all reduced to nothing, because those elected aren't to your liking. Everything is run by "leftists dictators," apparently. But hey, on the bright side, nobody's sending us death squads anymore.

With such a simple-minded view of this world, no thinking person can take these opinions seriously.

Epsilon, I am sure you know why these people are reducing this to simple terms. It has nothing to do with what happened, the dirty details or who else has concerns about the region. It's a chance to say "Obama, Chavez and Castro" in the same sentence. And that's all.

The UN and the OAS were unanamous on the issue. No country voted to recognize the coup as legitimate and it has nothing to do with Castro or Chavez.

Simple terms? How much simpler can you get than *Booga booga, Military BAD, booga booga*


The only reason why you like Chavez and Zelaya are because they look good in sashes and berets...

 

[Sweet Willy]

The only reason why you like Chavez and Zelaya are because they look good in sashes and berets...

Again with the simple minded bullshit.

I don't "like" Chavez or Zelaya. Has nothing to do with the issue.

In fact, I don't like Chavez, his attitudes, his idiotic flair for media attention, etc.

The fact that Venezuela voted with every other member of the UN and OAS does not however, validate the ridiculous statements that "Obama supports Chavez."

 

[eagleseven]

The only reason why you like Chavez and Zelaya are because they look good in sashes and berets...

Again with the simple minded bullshit.

I don't "like" Chavez or Zelaya. Has nothing to do with the issue.

In fact, I don't like Chavez, his attitudes, his idiotic flair for media attention, etc.

The fact that Venezuela voted with every other member of the UN and OAS does not however, validate the ridiculous statements that "Obama supports Chavez."

Is the logic too difficult for you to understand?

1. Zelaya = Chavez's puppet. Bloody hell, Zelaya's being flown around South America on Chavez's jetliner!

2. Obama supports Zelaya.

3. Therefore, Obama supports Chavez's puppet.

4. Hence, Obama supports Chavez.

Perhaps you don't see it that way, but I assure you, Chavez does.


The UN that was too cowardly to condemn the massacre in Iran is immaterial.

 

[Sweet Willy]

The only reason why you like Chavez and Zelaya are because they look good in sashes and berets...

Again with the simple minded bullshit.

I don't "like" Chavez or Zelaya. Has nothing to do with the issue.

In fact, I don't like Chavez, his attitudes, his idiotic flair for media attention, etc.

The fact that Venezuela voted with every other member of the UN and OAS does not however, validate the ridiculous statements that "Obama supports Chavez."

Is the logic too difficult for you to understand?

1. Zelaya = Chavez's puppet. Bloody hell, Zelaya's being flown around South America on Chavez's jetliner!

2. Obama supports Zelaya.

3. Therefore, Obama supports Chavez's puppet.

4. Hence, Obama supports Chavez.

Perhaps you don't see it that way, but I assure you, Chavez does.


The UN that was too cowardly to condemn the massacre in Iran is immaterial.

 

[eagleseven]

Again with the simple minded bullshit.

I don't "like" Chavez or Zelaya. Has nothing to do with the issue.

In fact, I don't like Chavez, his attitudes, his idiotic flair for media attention, etc.

The fact that Venezuela voted with every other member of the UN and OAS does not however, validate the ridiculous statements that "Obama supports Chavez."

Is the logic too difficult for you to understand?

1. Zelaya = Chavez's puppet. Bloody hell, Zelaya's being flown around South America on Chavez's jetliner!

2. Obama supports Zelaya.

3. Therefore, Obama supports Chavez's puppet.

4. Hence, Obama supports Chavez.

Perhaps you don't see it that way, but I assure you, Chavez does.


The UN that was too cowardly to condemn the massacre in Iran is immaterial.

For a guy who's bitching about my simple-mindedness, you sure are having a difficult time grasping the nuances of international relations...

 

[Sweet Willy]

Is the logic too difficult for you to understand?

1. Zelaya = Chavez's puppet. Bloody hell, Zelaya's being flown around South America on Chavez's jetliner!

2. Obama supports Zelaya.

3. Therefore, Obama supports Chavez's puppet.

4. Hence, Obama supports Chavez.

Perhaps you don't see it that way, but I assure you, Chavez does.


The UN that was too cowardly to condemn the massacre in Iran is immaterial.

For a guy who's bitching about my simple-mindedness, you sure are having a difficult time grasping the nuances of international relations...

There is no nuance there. It's simple minded chatter. Not worthy of further comment.

 

[eagleseven]

For a guy who's bitching about my simple-mindedness, you sure are having a difficult time grasping the nuances of international relations...

There is no nuance there. It's simple minded chatter. Not worthy of further comment.

Are you related to JB? He also has an annoying habit of calling his opponents stupid...